A Civ Fanatics Meta Poll

Discussion in 'CivBE - General Discussions' started by sherbz, Oct 26, 2014.


Rate the game

  1. 1/10

  2. 2/10

  3. 3/10

  4. 4/10

  5. 5/10

  6. 6/10

  7. 7/10

  8. 8/10

  9. 9/10

  10. 10/10

  1. Lanth

    Lanth Warlord

    Sep 16, 2007
    Personally I consider "6" to be a score for an "average" game. Anything that gets less than 6 means it has some glaring problems in at least one aspect of the game. Games that are fun but very buggy are unlikely to score any higher than 6 for example, and would usually easily score in the 4-5 range.

    Another thing to consider is that if we're reviewing big-budget games, very few would ever be released if they aren't up to a standard of 6, because it would be a waste of the publishers money. They'd rather can the project, fire the designers and forget the whole thing. Or possibly try and get another company to rescue it, although as we've seen that strategy can be a waste of time like what happened with DNF (I think they only attempted it due to brand recognition and an easy cash-in).

    Having said that, getting a score of 8 is fairly hard, and 8.5 or higher is uncommon, with 9 being quite rare and 10s are pretty much completely subjective (but also effectively mean no noticeable bugs, and excellent attention paid to all aspects of the game world such as graphics, sounds, controls, UI, story, AI, re-playability, etc).

    Having said all that, I gave BE 7/10. UI needs some work, AI needs a lot of work (I despair that it's ever going to be resolved to our satisfaction, given the length of time they've had to work on CiV). Mid to late game bogs down and it's lacking a real 'soul', but the fundamentals are there and I've not had any real performance bugs to speak of and only minor gameplay bugs.
  2. Matthew.

    Matthew. Deity

    Sep 14, 2011
    7/10 :p

    There are some flaws, but they are actually quite minor. Like stupid easy fixes that one could in an afternoon, either dev or modder.

    There are some minor points like disappointing victory and wonder screens, but countered by some awesome things like the music and affinities giving three different themes to all your units.

    Some polish and it will be 8 or 8.5.

    For me:

    1 = broken, unfinished
    ~3-4 = bad, very bad
    ~5-6 = not bringing anything new, mediocre more of the same
    ~7-8 = solid game in its genre, worth playing
    9 = one of the top games in its genre
    10 = not sure I've ever rated a game 10. The grandmaster of its genre, standing far and above competitors.

    BE is a decent 4X, and with polish it will get better. Not sure I can ever give it a 9 since that would mean beating other 4X titles, including its predecessor Civ 5.
  3. Bezurn

    Bezurn Prince

    Nov 23, 2005
    Gave it an 8.

    The good
    • Alpha Centauri tie ins, with an orignal premise and story line and victory conditions
    • Tech web is fun and makes subsequent replays much varied and refreshing
    • Affinities are fun and interesting choices, and have good implications for diplomacy
    • Units are cheap to build while buildings are more expendisve. In Civ 5 units were almost as expensive
    • Many worker improvements to build which allow cities to specialize in certain yields is enjoyable compared to farms on rivers, mines on hills boingness of Civ 5
    • Quests are great, allowing you to further customize your civilization throughout the game.
    • Engine seems nicely optimized. Game loads and turn times are not a problem.
    • Unit upgrades are nice and make it so veteran units do not become horribly imbalanced (aka double strike, 4 range battleships anyone??)
    • Espionage is a lot of fun, with some real missions that mean something - perhaps a bit unbalanced though.

    The bad
    • Trade route micromanagement and balance are off. Would be nice to have the system either automate with some general guidelines you can issue on a trade interface window, or a quick way to resume last trade route.
    • Killing aliens still feels like killing barbs. No way to know alien aggression.
    • Needs a balance pass to make some choices a bit more meaningful and less auto wins.

    The ugly
    • Interface while polished in some areas, needs to be either restored to the way it was in Civ 5, and bring back features which are oddly missing (last building built popup on city build message, stop growth of citizens)
  4. ThePowerofTower

    ThePowerofTower Chieftain

    Dec 2, 2013
    I gave it a solid 8, because it's got wonderful and welcome changes, like AI diplomacy, trade route changes, etc. And, not to mention, running this on a toaster, that hardly runs BNW at all, this game is incredibly smooth on lower-end systems without compromising a decent graphics style on the lowest settings.

    I'm really disappointed with the aliens. They feel like Barbarians, but they keep to themselves. They don't endlessly harass you, that is. However, they don't do much else, either. 'Your trade route has been destroyed by an alien' until you get the Reverse the Polarity quest. 'Wow, you're a dick to the aliens' if you're a dick to the aliens. Siege Worms feel like they should be more threatening, and Krakens? Giant avoidable sea-rocks.

    Oh, and depending on your affinity, tile improvements just feel like laying your favorite improvement over the local -insert terrain name here- of the area. It is, however, nice to see that there is more variety, and you can do creative things with techs and improvements as a pattern, but you just kind of slap the improvement on whatever and move on. There's less of a 'ooh, grasslands, this would make a great specialist city' or 'I see fish, hills, plains, and a barracks' and more 'how quickly can I get to Biowells, and how many generators do I make to pay for them?'. So a change, with some tradeoffs. Special resources don't even feel terribly significant, because the mid-to-late game tile improvements blow them out of the water. Has anyone ever run out of titanium?
  5. Kutuzov

    Kutuzov Prince

    Dec 9, 2006
    I'd have preferred to go with 7.5/10 but that's not possible so I plumped for a slightly generous 8/10. Quite simply, I'm having a lot of fun playing the game and it has enough that is sufficiently new that looks like it will hold my interest for some time to come too. I expect things to get even better after the first patch.

    I stopped taking anybody who rates something as a 1 seriously a long time ago. No way does this game merit a 1 or a 0. I'd probably rate a game like 'My Little Pony vs Predator' with atrocious, stuttering 2D graphics and riddled with bugs to the point that it is unplayable as a 1. This? I can't see how any person who wanted their opinion to be taken seriously in this community could rate it less than a 4.

    To the OP, it might be interesting to post a fresh poll after the first patch is released to see if the score goes up. It's getting increasingly common to see somewhat emotional reactions from online gamers to new games and they usually feel mollified after they get the first patch.
  6. lordrune

    lordrune Prince

    Jan 1, 2008
    I gave it the average vote - 7. Bear in mind, Civ 5 was pretty limited when it first came out. It became a much better game over time, with the expansions, and patch improvements which often incorporated community ideas.

    Civ BE will become better if Firaxis evolve the gameplay in a similar way. Even if not (and it would disappoint me greatly if they left the game much as it is) there's good potential for mods to improve things.
  7. Slvynn

    Slvynn Duke Vector fon Pixel

    Apr 3, 2005
    Voted 5.
    It is far from immersion/depth of SMAC, its AI is dumb, and i struggle to continue to play even on Apollo because lack of interest and challenge.
    I had same feeling about CiV vanilla when it came out, but it became already exciting game at 2nd expansion. I hope they will add specific soundtracks/more civ difference/immersion/depth and improve ai and fix tr.
  8. Ryika

    Ryika Lazy Wannabe Artista

    Aug 30, 2013
    7/10 for the potential it has. Probably 5/10 for the state it's currently in - but tbh, seeing a Civ-game evolve is part of the experience. 8)
  9. Aeson

    Aeson orangesoda Retired Moderator

    Nov 16, 2001
    9/10 ... it needs some tweaks but it's already provided far more entertainment value than I paid for. It's fun :)

    First game I've had pull me in for years ...
  10. Civ'ed

    Civ'ed I ain't gotta explain a thing

    Oct 7, 2010
    Aberdonia et Banffia
    Solid game, bit rough around the edges, but nothing I wouldn't expect from a strategy game at release (Hello, CK2!). Good value for money, although I do imagine it helps if you stop seeing it as SMAC 2.
  11. Lord Tirian

    Lord Tirian Erratic Poster

    Nov 30, 2007
    Liverpool, UK
    A weak 7/10 for the moment but with the potential to be so much more. It's a playable decent game, but has niggles and a lack of polish to keep it from greatness. With a good balance patch and a medium-sized expansion (in the vein of XCOM: Enemy Within), this could be a strong 8/10.

    For comparison to the 7/10, on my personal scale, the previous Civ titles rank as such:
    • Civ4: 8/10
    • Civ4+BtS: 10/10
    • Civ5: 6/10
    • Civ5+BNW: 9/10

    So, better than Civ5 at launch, but worse than the "complete" offerings we have at the moment (not a huge surprise, I guess!).
  12. Promethian

    Promethian Warlord

    Oct 23, 2014
    6 which is to say a little above average. It is held back only by things that should be pretty easy to fix, especially considering there are already mods out that do fix them. The potential is there, BE has a lot of great concepts, but they are undermined by bad mechanics.

    Take for example the different units/unit upgrades between the affinities. By the time the differences start to stand out the game is nearly over due to the low victory threshold.

    City building is also one of the things that makes Civ great but being able to just build everything for every city ruins it. No meaningful choices, just get the trade routes and everything is hammered out quick and easy.
  13. sherbz

    sherbz Emperor

    Mar 27, 2009
    My thoughts on the scoring are thus:

    1: Broken beyond repair and awful (see Big rigs review for an example)

    2: Awful - cannot be redeemed in any sense

    3: Very poor - not even the slightest trace of a good game, but functional

    4: Poor - you can see the idea, but it is poorly executed and devloped

    5: Average - some good ideas, some bad. Over all its an evens score

    6: Above average - Some good ideas and a few bad ones. The majority do well though

    7: Good - Mainly good ideas that, on the whole, have been well executed.

    8: Very good - Great ideas, well executed and a solid all round performance

    9: Exceptional - The best of current ideas employed to their absolute potential. The gaming creme de la creme.

    10: Groundbreaking/legendary - The same as 9, but also introduces new and successful ideas that advance the genre in a certain way
  14. Greasy Dave

    Greasy Dave Prince

    Oct 30, 2010
    Gave it an 8. I admit it has A LOT of problems - but I'm really enjoying it. I love the new features and I think the devs deserve some kind of positivity for going somewhere new with the franchise and doing those new things really well -I'm speaking about affinities, aliens, quests and the tech web.

    I know, I'm a soft touch
  15. Fabien

    Fabien Warlord

    Jun 15, 2008
    I gave it an 8/10.

    I think most of the current Issues (Trade Routes, AI, Tech and Affinity Balance and Apollo being too easy) can be patched; I think BA is a solid basis to develop from.
  16. Karmah

    Karmah Emperor Supporter

    Mar 3, 2011
    Gave it a 7. I would have gone 8 for the same reasons as you , but I don't want the devs to think they can stop here :) Most positive feedbacks are still about potential. Besides I ve been defending the game enough on this forum to be a tiny touch severe :)
  17. ahawk

    ahawk King

    Aug 22, 2011
    I gave it a 7.

    The logic as to why I gave it a 7 is:

    It's a solid 8 before you factor in that it's a game that saved man-hours by using the Civ V engine yet has fewer civs (sponsors, now) than Civ V vanilla even had, and these sponsors are not well-detailed.

    Really, it's about an 8 for what it is if Civ V had never existed, but, when you sit and actually think about how they should have had more time than ever to make real content since they saved those man-hours, it kinda makes me have to drop it to a 7.
  18. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Sep 18, 2003
    Because that's ridiculous.
  19. sherbz

    sherbz Emperor

    Mar 27, 2009
    I dont mind the fact there are not so many sponsors. But the caveat to that is they have to be unique, they have to have a personality, and there has to be narrative. All i get is the stupid African guy repeatedly saying "no village, has ever been ruined by trade". ALL THE BLOODY TIME.

    Rant over.
  20. ahawk

    ahawk King

    Aug 22, 2011
    That's exactly what I meant, though: since they saved time by not having to develop an all-new engine, it's inexcusable that the sponsors are both too few and too poorly detailed. I agree: I could have stomached only 8 sponsors if each had 5 unique traits/units/whatever, but when the sponsors have so little gameplay-affecting stuff and have so little aesthetic detail, it sort of makes me feel like they could easily have made 30 sponsors for the base game since not much work had to be done on each of them.

    All-in-all, I like the game, but the sponsor situation is worse than what I had imagined when they said there'd only be 8. I mean, even Civ 4 Colonization (the other recent civ game with only 8 factions) had like 2 buffs per leader while this has 1 each. Again, just silly. And a big part of why I feel like this can't be given more than a 7 in my book.

Share This Page